In Henry VI, Shakespeare wrote,
"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers".
It wasn't that he disliked lawyers so much as he was saying that if you want to take over a country, first you have to get rid of those that are guardians of law and justice.
Republicans have used that same logic to take over America.
Instead of literally killing their opponents though, the Republican's are at least kind enough to handle it metaphorically through negative ads.
Republicans Write First and Think Later
It is as though they first write the negative attack ad, and then corner the Dems into being the victims of the ad.
And the ad is always based on a false choice. In this case it was are you for the terrorist or are you for torture.
Understanding the Public Response
I am not a linguist but I think if we are going to engage in this debate over torture we have to make the public see our concern in a light that would make them care enough to listen.
I think most Americans tune this stuff out. Americans think what they hear. That is why the Republicans repeat the same message so consistently. It works.
The public hears "detainees" or "enemy combatants", they think evil people. In their minds, those terms have been associated with people who have already been convicted.
They don't think about the fact that the "detainees" or "enemy combatants" could have been innocent and just in the wrong place at the wrong time because that is where the warlord dropped them off that day.
How Do We Reframe the Issue?
Clearly we need to reframe the issue so we don't get backed into that corner. Ideally we could reframe it so that they get backed into a corner.
I'm just not sure how to do that.
I looked at Rockridge and they say don't use the phrase "war on terror" but I don't see an alternative frame. (I prefer war in Iraq -- I don't think we can say IRAQ enough times over the next month.
So, do we reframe it as "Do You Want to Fight terrorism or Stoop to the Level of Terrorists?"
There has to be a better and snappier frame.
The public does get the concept of being a moral authority, of respecting international agreements, of not wanting to subject American soldiers to torture if they are captured.
But we are not effectively arguing this one.